Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

12 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 273clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi112 Mumbai63 Jaipur57 Bangalore32 Indore26 Visakhapatnam15 Hyderabad12 Ahmedabad12 Pune9 Kolkata9 Lucknow9 Cochin8 Chandigarh7 Rajkot6 Chennai5 Raipur4 Nagpur4 Agra3 Cuttack3 Patna1 Jodhpur1 Jabalpur1 Guwahati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income12 Section 26310 Section 143(1)9 Search & Seizure7 Section 2716 Section 115J5 Section 404 Section 153A4 Section 271(1)

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

4

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

u/s 263 of the Act”. In our view, the above said finding is self-contradictory, as the ld.PCIT himself records that PCIT has the power to record the satisfaction and impose the penalty. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has not recorded satisfaction in the impugned order nor he had initiated and imposed the penalty himself. Quite contrary

APACHE FOOTWEAR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MAMBATTU VILLAGE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE-1(1), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 385/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kuriachan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 13Section 144CSection 5

273 - ITAT Delhi held that by issuing demand notice along with draft assessment order. the Assessing Officer by passed the mandatory sub sections of section 144C of the Act and set aside the order. 7. The Appellant rely upon the following Hon'ble Tribunal and High Court decisions rendered in similar to the case of the Appellant

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. HSBC ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

273) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that Minimum Alternative Taxes (MAT) under section 115]B of the Act is a self-contained code and the AO has no jurisdiction to alter the book profit except to the extent provided in the explanation to section 115JB of the Act; Disallowances of expenditures: ITA Nos.1613 & 1632/Hyd/2017 Page

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 75/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

273/- in F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10). Following up, in the assessment proceedings - where the assessee in the face of an enquiry by the Assessing Officer found it necessary to withdraw certain expenditure claimed in the same Indore project for similar reasons, the admission related to F.Y.2008-09 (A.Y.2009-10) amounting to Rs.1,18,16,873/- and F.Y.2009-10 (A.Y.2010-11) amounting to Rs.30

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

penalty u/s 234B of the Act by observing that the cash seized should have been adjusted against the self assessment tax payable with the return of income. Thus, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that interest charged u/s 234B of the Act in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, deserves